ID: 86-5.18

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: 09/12/86

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Erika Z. Jones; NHTSA

TO: Mr. John C. Hilliard

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT:

Mr. John C. Hilliard Chairman & Technical Director Combustion and Fuel Research, Inc. 857-9 South Wagner Road Ann Arbor, MI 48103

Dear Mr. Hilliard:

Thank you for your letter of July 1, 1986 asking how our regulations would affect the placement of the steering wheel on delivery vehicles You asked whether there are any State or Federal regulations which would prevent the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel. As discussed below, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has not issued any safety standards that would prohibit the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel. As to State laws, I suggest you check with the Department of Transportation in the States where your client wants to use the vehicles.

Some background information about our agency and its standards may be of assistance to you. NHTSA has the authority to issue safety standards applicable to new motor vehicles and certain items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA, however, does not approve motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment, nor do we endorse any commercial products. Instead, the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act establishes a "self-certification" process under which each manufacturer is responsible for certifying that its products meet our safety standards. The agency periodically tests vehicles and equipment items for compliance with the standards, and also investigates alleged safety-related defects.

We do not have any standards that prohibit the use of a right hand drive steering system. We have, however, issued two safety standards (Standard Nos. 203 and 204) that set performance requirements which apply to any steering system, whether left or right hand drive, installed in new passenger cars and light trucks, buses, and multipurpose passenger vehicles. A copy of each of these standards is enclosed.

If you have any further questions, please let me know.

Sincerely,

Erika Z. Jones Chief Counsel

Enclosure

July 1, 1986.

Mr. Stephen Wood Assistant Chief Council for Rulemaking NHTSA 400 7th Street SW Room 5219 Washington DC 20590

Dear Mr. Wood:

On the advice of Mr. Charles Fisher, of the Michigan Department of Transportation , I am writing for information on the following matter.

We have a specific inquiry with regard to placement of the steering wheel on delivery vehicles. As you know, many postal service vehicles and street utility vehicles are equipped, with steering wheels on the right--hand side.

One of our clients is exploring the possible manufacture of delivery vehicles where the driver has to leave the cab at regular intervals. Could you please tell us whether there are any state and/or federal regulations which would prevent the installation of a right hand drive steering wheel for a privately owned, delivery company?

We thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely yours,

John C. Hilliard Chairman & Technical Director

JCH:ph

ID: 22652B.ztv

AIR MAIL





Mr. Richard King
Manager/Director
Wheel Lighting Devices, Ltd.
Downs Road South Brydone R.D. 4
Gore, New Zealand

FAX: 64 3 2066786





Dear Mr. King:

This is letter will supplement our letter of April 12, 2001, on the legality of HubLites under the laws administered by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

In that letter, we informed you that we considered HubLites to be similar to a device that we had previously reviewed and which we had concluded could possibly impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices and Associated Equipment (letter of March 15, 1989, to Byung M. Soh). That device was a self-lighting hub cap which included a motion-activated LED light whose intensity varied according to the speed of the vehicle. HubLites appeared to be similar in color and location to the Soh system, though without varying intensity.

On April 25, you e-mailed Taylor Vinson of this Office asking that we review our interpretation, and, in response to our question, explained in your e-mail of April 30, 2001, that HubLites "are self-illuminating hubcaps . . . and revolve at a fixed diameter with the hubs and wheels of the vehicle." We found that we needed further information, and you responded on June 21, 2001, providing, for the first time, several photographs of HubLites installed and in operation. Later you explained that what appeared to be an interrupted ring of light in one of the photos was due to the way the wheel was photographed and that, in fact, the system produces a continuous ring of light.

You have called to our attention our letter of June 29, 1994, to R.H. Goble in which we concluded that the wheel well lighting system he described "would not appear to have the potential of confusion." In your view, HubLites is essentially not different from the Goble system in its function.

We have reviewed our earlier letter to you, and the Soh and Goble interpretations. The Goble system consisted of small lights mounted at the top of the wheel well. These lights were intended to supplement existing turn signal, clearance, stop, and hazard warning signal lamps, and to operate in conjunction with them to convey the same message. The small lamps at the top of the wheel well flash when the turn signal and hazard warning signal lamps operate, and are steady burning when the clearance and stop lamps are activated. When these lamps are inoperative, the wheel well lamps do not illuminate.

There is no such supplementary intent with either the Soh system or HubLites. Their function is purely ornamental. The pictures you provided show that HubLites consist of several small lights midway on the hub of the wheel. At night, these appear to provide a ring of light on both the front and back wheels. We believe that this novelty has the potential to distract drivers approaching the vehicle from the side and from some other angles, so that they would not immediately perceive the signal and marker lamps that are required under U.S. Federal law. Thus, we must confirm our original interpretation to you.

Please note that the agency is growing increasingly conservative in its views about the permissibility under Federal law of novelty lighting items which have no discernable safety benefit, given the possibility of these devices causing confusion to drivers and distracting them from the safety messages sent by required lighting equipment.

I am sorry that we are not able to help you further.

Sincerely,

John Womack
Acting Chief Counsel

Ref:108
d.7/5/01

ID: nht90-4.57

TYPE: Interpretation-NHTSA

DATE: November 9, 1990

FROM: Paul Jackson Rice -- Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: W.C. Glasscock -- Sun-Cool & Co.

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached to letter dated 9-4-90 from W.C. Glasscock (OCC 5237)

TEXT:

This responds to your letter concerning the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows. According to your letter, you have been involved in the window tinting business for many years but only recently became aware of the fact that Fede ral law prohibits businesses from adding tinting film to motor vehicle windows if it reduces the level of light transmittance below that required by the Federal standard. You expressed concern that there appears to be a conflict between Federal and stat e law in this area and that there has been a lack of enforcement of the Federal requirement.

We are pleased that you have become aware of the Federal requirement in this area and that you are apparently now complying with it. As you may have heard, we have brought suit against six tint businesses in Florida. Those cases are pending in Federal c ourt. We also plan to take appropriate steps to enforce the Federal requirement in other parts of the nation.

I will now discuss the relationship between Federal and state law in this area. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish requirements for specific level s of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR S571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 per cent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not "render inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in complianc e with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows "inoperati ve, within the meaning of Standard 205.

You stated that state laws differ from the Federal law, citing as an example an Illinois law which, according to your letter, allows tinting on the rear and sides of vehicles as long as the vehicle's owner has a letter

from a physician licensed to practice in the state of Illinois that explains the medical basis for the need.

The "render inoperative" provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which after market tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

However, no state has the authority to grant any exemptions from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of state law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor ve hicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

ID: 2743y

Mr. W. C. Glasscock
Sun-Cool & Co.
2201 North Fifth Street
Springfield, Illinois 62702

Dear Mr. Glasscock:

This responds to your letter concerning the installation of aftermarket tinting on motor vehicle windows. According to your letter, you have been involved in the window tinting business for many years but only recently became aware of the fact that Federal law prohibits businesses from adding tinting film to motor vehicle windows if it reduces the level of light transmittance below that required by the Federal standard. You expressed concern that there appears to be a conflict between Federal and state law in this area and that there has been a lack of enforcement of the Federal requirement.

We are pleased that you have become aware of the Federal requirement in this area and that you are apparently now complying with it. As you may have heard, we have brought suit against six tint businesses in Florida. Those cases are pending in Federal court. We also plan to take appropriate steps to enforce the Federal requirement in other parts of the nation.

I will now discuss the relationship between Federal and state law in this area. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") is responsible for issuing Federal motor vehicle safety standards that establish requirements for specific levels of safety performance for new motor vehicles and motor vehicle equipment. Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 205, Glazing Materials (49 CFR 571.205), which has been in effect since 1968, imposes a minimum level of light transmittance of 70 percent in all areas requisite for driving visibility (which includes all windows on passenger cars). The purpose of this requirement is to ensure adequate visibility through the windows, thereby reducing the risk of a motor vehicle crash.

Although Federal motor vehicle safety standards apply directly only to new vehicles and equipment, Federal law also imposes limits on the addition of tinting materials to motor vehicle glazing after vehicles have been purchased by consumers. Pursuant to section 108(a)(2) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2), manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or motor vehicle repair businesses may not "render inoperative" any equipment or element of design installed in compliance with a Federal safety standard. Thus, those businesses may not install tinting that reduces the light transmittance of windows covered by Standard 205 to a level below the Federal requirement of 70 percent, since that would make the windows "inoperative" within the meaning of Standard 205.

You stated that state laws differ from the Federal law, citing as an example an Illinois law which, according to your letter, allows tinting on the rear and sides of vehicles as long as the vehicle's owner has a letter from a physician licensed to practice in the state of Illinois that explains the medical basis for the need.

The "render inoperative" provision of Federal law does not apply to actions by individual vehicle owners. Therefore, each State may regulate the extent to which after market tinting may be applied by vehicle owners to their own vehicles.

However, no state has the authority to grant any exemptions from the "render inoperative" prohibition of Federal law that applies to commercial entities. Hence, regardless of any provisions of state law, no manufacturer, distributor, dealer, or motor vehicle repair business may legally install window tinting film on a vehicle, unless the vehicle continues to comply with the Federal light transmittance requirements.

I hope this information is helpful.

Sincerely,

Paul Jackson Rice Chief Counsel

ref:205 d:ll/9/90

ID: nht80-4.11

DATE: 10/20/80

FROM: AUTHOR UNAVAILABLE; Frank Berndt; NHTSA

TO: General Electric Company

TITLE: FMVSS INTERPRETATION

TEXT: This responds to your letter of July 30, 1980, concerning Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 116, in which you inquired about the definition of "purple" as specified for the color of DOT 5 brake fluid. During a telephone conversation regarding the question on September 2, 1980, with Edward Glancy of this office, you suggested that specific color coordinates be established and expressed concern about another manufacturer's DOT 5 brake fluid that appears to be blue rather than purple.

Paragraph S5.1.14 of the standard states: "Brake fluid and hydraulic system mineral oil manufactured on or after September 1, 1978, shall be of the color indicated: . . . DOT 5 -- purple." This is in contrast to the color specifications of DOT 3 and DOT 4 brake fluid which are required to be colorless to amber and hydraulic system mineral oil which is required to be green.

The major purpose of the color coding requirements is to permit easy identification of fluids before they are placed in a vehicle, in order to prevent the mixing of an incompatible fluid in a braking system. See notice 12 of Docket 71-13, published in the Federal Register (41 FR 54942, 54943) on December 16, 1976. At an early stage in the rulemaking process, the Agency did propose color requirements defined in terms of millimicrons. See notice 5 of Docket 71-13, published in the Federal Register (38 FR 32142, 32144) on November 21, 1973. (The colors proposed at that time were later changed.) Later, however, the Agency determined that visual inspection for color compliance was adequate and the proposed wavelength bands were deleted. See notice 6 of Docket 71-13, published in the Federal Register (39 FR 30353) on August 22, 1974.

As you noted in your letter, Notice 10 of Docket 71-13, published in the Federal Register (40 FR 56928) on December 5, 1975, does explain:

. . . The specifications for fluid colors are intended to refer to color ranges as generally interpreted in day-light by persons of normal color vision. No color coordinates are proposed, since the fluids may change color in storage or in use (without detriment to the performance of the fluids).

Establishing specific color coordinates would require rule-making proceedings in accordance with agency regulations. If you believe that coordinates ought to be established, you may wish to consider submitting a petition for rulemaking to amend FMVSS 116. The procedures for submitting such a petition are set forth at 49 CFR Part 552. If you should submit a petition, we would like to see it address the issues of why visual inspection for color compliance is inadequate and what type of definition should be established.

If you believe that another manufacturer is in noncompliance with Standard 116, we suggest that you send the relevant information to our office of Vehicle Safety Compliance for enforcement purposes.

We have enclosed copies of the Federal Register notices referred to by this letter.

Sincerely,

ATTACH.

GENERAL ELECTRIC

SILICONE SALES DEPARTMENT

July 30, 1980

Office of Chief Counsel -- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The Silicone Products Division of General Electric Company requests a legal interpretation of the requirement of paragraph S5.1.14 of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 116.

Our question is: How do you define "Purple" as specified for the color of DOT-5 brake fluid?

We note that the preamble to Notice 10 of Docket 71-13 states in part that "the specifications for fluid colors are intended to refer to color ranges as generally interpreted in daylight by persons of normal color vision." The preamble further states that "no color coordinates are proposed since the fluids may change color in storage or in use."

Thank you.

T. M. Birdwell

ID: 17450.nhf

Mr. Joseph Giletto
Northeastern Equipment
150 Brentwood Drive
Mount Laurel, NJ 08054

Dear Mr. Giletto:

This responds to your inquiry about whether several pieces of construction equipment you intend to import from Italy are motor vehicles that must comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. Specifically, you intend to import minitransporters, dumpers, selfloading truck mixers, and concrete mixers. You state that the equipment operates on public roads in exceptional circumstances only and is transported by a trailer when moved over public highways. On the basis of the information you provided in your letter and the brochures you enclosed , it appears that the pieces of construction equipment are not motor vehicles. Since you would not be importing motor vehicles, you would not be required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issues and enforces the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. NHTSA's statute defines the term "motor vehicle" as follows:

[A] vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical power manufactured primarily for use on the public streets, roads, and highways, but does not include a vehicle operated only on a rail line. 49 USC 30102(a)(6).

Whether NHTSA considers the various pieces of construction equipment to be motor vehicles depends on their use. In the past, we have concluded that this statutory definition does not encompass mobile construction equipment, such as cranes and scrapers, which use the highway only to move between job sites and which typically spend extended periods of time at a single job site. In such cases, the on-road use of the equipment is merely incidental and is not the primary purpose for which they were manufactured. Other construction vehicles, such as dump trucks, frequently use the highway going to and from job sites, and stay at a job site for only a limited time. Such vehicles are considered motor vehicles, since the on-highway use is more than "incidental."

Based on the information you provided in your letter and the brochures you enclosed, it appears that the various pieces of construction equipment you intend to import are not "motor vehicles" within the meaning of the statutory definition. This conclusion is based on the statements in your letter that the construction equipment is loaded onto a trailer when moved between job sites and will be operated at the work-site area only. It is also based on the statement that the equipment will be on the road only when operated at the work-site. Thus, the agency would consider the use of the construction equipment on the public roads to be merely incidental. Since these types of construction equipment are not motor vehicles, they would not be required to comply with the Federal motor vehicle safety standards. If NHTSA were to receive additional information indicating that the construction equipment uses the public roads on more than an incidental basis, the agency would reassess this interpretation.

If you have further questions regarding NHTSA's safety standards, please contact Nicole Fradette of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,
Frank Seales, Jr.
Chief Counsel
ref:VSA
d.6/2/98

ID: 24625.ztv

Mr. Anthony Dowling
5290 45^th Avenue N.
St. Petersburg, FL 33709

Dear Mr. Dowling:

This is in reply to your letter of June 17, 2002, asking for an interpretation regarding the legality under Federal law of your "U-Turn Traffic Signal Indicator" (the "Indicator)."

The patent drawings that you enclosed show a U-shaped lamp 3 to 4 inches in height with a crossbar bearing the word "TURN;" the lamp and crossbar are illuminated by flashing yellow LEDs. We assume that the device operates independently of the turn signal system of the vehicle on which it is installed.

I enclose a copy of a 1988 interpretation letter of this Office addressed to Wayne Apple who wrote on the general subject of U-turn indicators. In that letter, we advised Mr. Apple that a supplemental lighting device such as a U-turn indicator would be acceptable as original vehicle equipment provided that it did not impair the effectiveness of a vehicles required lighting equipment. We also addressed the indicator as aftermarket equipment. The general principles expressed in the letter remain valid, but 15 U.S.C. 1397(a)(2)(A) has been recodified as 49 U.S.C. 30122. Further, the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) has moved to 4600 Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22203.

However, Mr. Apple asked a hypothetical question while you have presented a detailed design of a U-turn indicator for our analysis. Under Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard No. 108, Lamps, Reflective Devices, and Associated Equipment, turn signal lamps are permitted to flash but accessory lamps must be steady burning (S5.5.10). We cannot regard your flashing U-turn indicator as a supplemental turn signal lamp and permitted to flash as it appears to operate independently of the turn signal system of the vehicle on which it would be installed. Further, it does not indicate either a right or left turn. Therefore, it would not be permissible as original vehicle equipment under S5.5.10.

Our second reservation concerns the unique design of the indicator and the presence of the word "TURN" on the crossbar. The shape of the indicator is one that is unfamiliar to motorists. Further, we discourage the use of words or messages on lighting equipment because we believe that they may distract a following driver from reacting to signals from stop or turn signal lamps, hence, impair the effectiveness of lighting equipment required by Standard No. 108 within the meaning of paragraph S5.1.3 of that standard (see our letter to Mr. Apple). Therefore, in our opinion, your indicator would not be permitted as original vehicle equipment by S5.1.3 because of its shape and use of the word "TURN."

Aftermarket lighting equipment may not be installed by a manufacturer, dealer, distributor, or motor vehicle repair business if it "makes inoperative" any element of design or device installed in accordance with a Federal motor vehicle safety standard. As a general rule, if an accessory lamp is not permitted as original equipment, it is also not permitted as replacement equipment. However, neither Section 30122 nor any other Federal law would prohibit the owner of a vehicle from installing the U-turn indicator. Nevertheless, the U-turn indicator would be subject to the laws of the individual States in which it is used and which may or may not permit it. We regret that we are unable to provide you with interpretations of State laws.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:108
d.12/12/02

ID: 04-007667drn

Mr. Eric Lotzer
Precision Equipment Manufacturing
2719 40^th Avenue North
Fargo, ND58102

Dear Mr. Lotzer:

This responds to your request for an interpretation concerning National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requirements that apply to your companys construction roll-off trailers and to the trucks that pull the trailers.

In your letter, you state that Precision Equipment Manufacturing (PEM) seeks to improve the design and functionality of your trailers, making them more convenient (yet safe) for the customer to control. At present, your trailers can only be operated from outside the truck that pulls the trailers, i.e. , the driver/operator must be outside the cab of the truck to raise, lower, extend and retract the trailer to unload materials. In the future, PEM would like to make the trailers operational from inside the cab of the truck. You wish to know if there are any Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSSs) that establish requirements for operating controls from inside the cab of a truck pulling the trailer.

By way of background information, NHTSA is authorized to issue FMVSSs for new motor vehicles and new items of motor vehicle equipment. NHTSA does not provide approvals of motor vehicles or motor vehicle equipment. Instead, manufacturers are required to certify that their vehicles and equipment meet applicable standards.

NHTSA has established FMVSSs that apply to trucks and to trailers (See 49 CFR Part 571). However, we have not issued any FMVSSs that specify requirements for in-cabcontrols for operating a trailer. We note that if the in-cab controls are installed in a vehicle by a manufacturer or other business (other than the truck or trailer manufacturer), the business installing the in-cab controls would have responsibilities relating to ensuring that the vehicle met, or continued to meet, all FMVSSs with the in-cab controls installed. The details of these responsibilities are explained in the enclosed fact sheet referred to at the end of this letter.

Beyond compliance with relevant Federal safety standards, manufacturers of motor vehicles (i.e. , trucks and trailers) have additional responsibilities, including a requirement to notify purchasers about safety-related defects and to provide a remedy free of charge. 49 U.S.C. Sections 30118-30120.

In addition, you should be aware that other governmental entities may have authority over your product. It appears from the information you have submitted that you have already received a response from the U.S. Department of Transportations Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), which has jurisdiction over commercial vehicles and interstate motor carriers operating in the United States. In addition, States have the authority to regulate the use and licensing of vehicles operating within their jurisdictions. Therefore, you may wish to check with the Department of Motor Vehicles in any State in which your trucks and trailers will be sold or used regarding any such requirements.

I have enclosed a fact sheet entitled "Information for New Manufacturers of Motor Vehicles and Motor Vehicle Equipment." I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please feel free to contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at this address or by telephone at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

Jacqueline Glassman
Chief Counsel

Enclosure
ref:101#VSA
d.12/22/04

ID: 9891-2

Mr. Fred Benford
100+ Motoring Accessories
2220 East Orangewood Avenue
Anaheim, CA 92806-61100

Dear Mr. Benford:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps. You wrote that your company manufactures aluminum wheel covers without "protruding objects." You requested confirmation that the wheel covers do not violate any FMVSS. Our response is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles, or of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the responsibility of the manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to ensure that its equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 211 regulates wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. Since "wheel discs" encompasses wheel covers, your company's wheel covers are subject to Standard No. 211. S4. Requirements of Standard No. 211 states in part:

As installed on any physically compatible combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections ...

In your letter, you stated that your wheel covers do not have any "protruding objects." Since Standard No. 211 prohibits wheel discs (covers) with "winged projections," if your company's wheel covers do not incorporate "winged projections," the wheel covers would satisfy Standard No. 211. "Winged projection" is defined at S3.2 of Standard No. 211 as an exposed cantilevered appendage that projects radially from a wheel disc and that typically has front, edge, and/or rear surfaces which are not in contact with the wheel when the wheel disc is installed on the axle.

You also asked whether wheel covers made of aluminum violate any FMVSS. The answer is no, because Standard No. 211 does not specify materials for use in wheel covers. However, since wheel covers are "motor vehicle equipment," your company must ensure that the wheel covers are free of safety-related defects under the Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that your company or NHTSA determines that the wheel covers have a safety-related defect, your company would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective wheel covers and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,

John Womack Acting Chief Counsel

ref:211 NCC20:DNakama:mar:62992:apr/22/94;OCC#9891 cc: NCC-20 Subj/chron, DN NEF-01, NRM-01 [U:\NCC20\INTERP\211\9891.DRN] Interps: Std. No. 211, Redbook (2)

ID: nht94-2.87

TYPE: INTERPRETATION-NHTSA

DATE: May 16, 1994

FROM: John Womack -- Acting Chief Counsel, NHTSA

TO: Fred Benford -- 100+ Motoring Accessories

TITLE: None

ATTACHMT: Attached To Letter Dated 4/18/94 From Fred Benford To John womack (OCC-9891)

TEXT: Dear Mr. Benford:

This responds to your request for an interpretation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (FMVSS) No. 211, Wheel nuts, wheel discs and hub caps. You wrote that your company manufactures aluminum wheel covers without "protruding objects." You requested confirmation that the wheel covers do not violate any FMVSS. Our response is provided below.

By way of background information, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) does not provide approvals of motor vehicles, or of motor vehicle equipment. Under the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Safety Act), it is the res ponsibility of the manufacturers of motor vehicle equipment to ensure that its equipment meet applicable requirements. The following represents our opinion based on the facts provided in your letter.

Standard No. 211 regulates wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps. Since "wheel discs" encompasses wheel covers, your company's wheel covers are subject to Standard No. 211. S4. Requirements of Standard No. 211 states in part:

As installed on any physically compatible combination of axle and wheel rim, wheel nuts, wheel discs, and hub caps for use on passenger cars and multipurpose passenger vehicles shall not incorporate winged projections . . .

In your letter, you stated that your wheel covers do not have any "protruding objects." Since Standard No. 211 prohibits wheel discs (covers) with "winged projections," if your company's wheel covers do not incorporate "winged projections," the wheel cov ers would satisfy Standard No. 211. "Winged projection" is defined at S3.2 of Standard No. 211 as an exposed cantilevered appendage that projects radially from a wheel disc and that typically has front, edge, and/or rear surfaces which are not in contac t with the wheel when the wheel disc is installed on the axle.

2

You also asked whether wheel covers made of aluminum violate any FMVSS. The answer is no, because Standard No. 211 does not specify materials for use in wheel covers. However, since wheel covers are "motor vehicle equipment," your company must ensure t hat the wheel covers are free of safety-related defects under the Safety Act. Sections 151-159 of the Safety Act concern the recall and remedy of products with defects related to motor vehicle safety. In the event that your company or NHTSA determines that the wheel covers have a safety-related defect, your company would be responsible for notifying purchasers of the defective wheel covers and remedying the problem free of charge.

I hope this information is helpful. If you have any further questions, please contact Dorothy Nakama of my staff at (202) 366-2992.

Sincerely,